Smitten with a Whip: Three Appreciations of Indiana Jones

When re-releasing their beloved E.T. and Star Wars trilogy for a new generation of viewers, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas angered the films’ original fans by committing crimes of digital alteration. Spielberg turned government agents’ guns into walkie-talkies, removing the few justifiable hints of menace in E.T. Lucas’ sins guaranteed him a lower circle of Hell: he added special effects using technology then unavailable to him, which upset purists like me; he changed character motivations; worst of all, he recast an actor in the ghostly final shot of Return of the Jedi (substituting Hayden Christensen, young Anakin Skywalker in the prequels, for Sebastian Shaw, who played the older, unmasked Anakin in the film proper) for the sole purpose of trying to convince us that the second trilogy deserved to be mentioned in the same breath as the first. Granted, these are Spielberg and Lucas’ films, and they can butcher them at will, but in making the original versions hard to obtain on home video, it felt as if they were rewriting history. Imagine the rabid anti-smokers digitally redoing Paul Henreid’s famous Now, Voyager cigarette lighting scene with Twizzlers.

Lucas and Spielberg collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark, a movie I resisted buying on any media until a widescreen version was available. The duo released the entire original trilogy in a DVD box set, along with a bonus DVD detailing all aspects of the filmmaking process. News of the release horrified me at first, as I expected some form of alteration to befall the series, which I could deal with only if it involved erasing the second installment, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Thankfully, the only thing these guys put their damn dirty paws all over was the title of the movie that started it all. Raiders of the Lost Ark, at least on the box and the DVD menus, became the unwieldy Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.

People always ask me, “What’s your favorite movie?” or “Who’s your favorite actor/director?” My opinions have changed slightly over the years, but there is one question I doubt will ever be subjected to the kind of dirty pool changes I’ve just bitched about: If someone asks me what was the best time I had at the movies, the answer is, and will always be, the day I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark. I read somewhere that every generation gets the James Bond it deserves. For me, that Bond was Roger Moore. Or so I thought. After watching Raiders again for the first time in several years, I noticed how much it plays into the conventions of the Bond genre. There’s an opening adventure to establish the hero’s feats of derring-do (though this occurs post-credits sequence), an M-like figure (Denholm Elliott) to assign adventures to the hero, a sidekick (John Rhys-Davies) who occasionally provides local information, spectacular action set pieces with suspenseful last minute escapes, and a feisty woman to add eye candy for the adolescent boys. Raiders has all of these, recasting and returning the Bond formula to its earlier, more chaste incarnation in the serials George Lucas loved as a kid.

Raiders has an odd pedigree and an even odder legend of its creation. The story is credited to Lucas and Philip Kaufman, two outer space-loving guys, and written by Big Chill-helmer Lawrence Kasdan. Kasdan had just worked with Lucas prior, reshaping Leigh Brackett’s script for The Empire Strikes Back. The idea for the script came, according to both Spielberg and Lucas, from stories Lucas would tell about a hero named after his dog. After Close Encounters and Empire, Raiders came into being with Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones. Thanks to CBS, however, Selleck was unable to fulfill his obligation to the feature, leaving Harrison Ford the opportunity to create another trilogy-based character who will live forever. Selleck looks more like a serial character than Ford, but this would have been a different movie if Magnum P.I. hadn’t been contractually bound; Indy would have been more suave and less dangerous.

Speaking of danger, Mr. Jones can’t seem to stay out of it. Raiders opens with one of the greatest sequences ever committed to film, a mini-masterpiece of storytelling and editing that establishes the character’s motivations, enemies, skills, flaws and temperament better than pages of exposition. Indiana Jones is on some kind of mission in the jungle, looking for an artifact that its prior owners have suitably booby-trapped. Jones shows his vast knowledge of archeology early, preventing his subordinate (a pre Doc-Ock Alfred Molina) from stepping on the same fatal booby trap that will later repay his underling’s treachery. Indy retrieves the idol he is seeking, but sets off the ancient burglar alarm in the process. What happens next is thrilling: Indy outruns poison arrows, his guide’s treachery, and a boulder the size of Jupiter. Just when you think our hero’s home free, he is then robbed by his arch-enemy, a Nazi named Belloq (Paul Freeman). Belloq is armed with far more natives than Indy is, and Jones doesn’t speak their language. This leads to even more running, a quick escape, and the movie’s revelation that Jones has ophidiophobia.

Raiders of the Lost Ark has little time to stop and tell you All About Indy. The film’s dialogue sequences seem to be impatiently waiting for the action to begin; the storyteller is speeding up the tale to get you to the good parts. This isn’t a criticism, as Kasdan’s script moves through the important details and Spielberg’s camera provides reminders by mirroring scenes or repeating pieces of earlier dialogue. Raiders reveals a lot about its characters by showing rather than telling. When we meet Marion (Karen Allen), Indy’s former love interest and the daughter of his mentor, she is drinking people under the table at the bar she owns. This seems like a throwaway character trait at first, like the skill a Bond girl is given to hide that she’s really just fodder for the hero’s loins. Indy’s character even seems to overshadow her (literally at one point—Spielberg reintroduces Marion to Indy by projecting his shadow on the wall behind her). Yet in a later scene, that throwaway detail becomes a major plot point, and Marion becomes more complicated than any Bond girl ever could be.

In their first scene together, Marion and Indy provide us with enough detail to invest in their relationship. They talk quickly, for as soon as Indy shows up looking for an artifact Marion’s father used to own, so do the Nazis. The chase is on, with Marion as Indy’s self-proclaimed “goddamned partner” in search of the Ark of the Covenant, a large MacGuffin that turns out not to be a MacGuffin after all. During the course of the film, Marion saves Indy and, to balance out the show for those teenage boys who get fidgety when a woman is effective, Indy saves Marion. Of the three women Jones encounters in the first three films, Marion is the most interesting and the least aggravating. The filmmakers were wise to bring her back for the fourth film, if only to save me from Cate Blanchett’s Natasha Fatale.

The original trilogy’s penchant for strange sidekicks for Indy also starts here with a Benedict Arnold of a monkey. The monkey latches onto Marion and Indy, then provides details of their whereabouts to their enemies. Kasdan and company find a clever use of the monkey; we hiss at him at first, but his accidental redemption saves Indy from a literal date with death. Later sidekicks will include the annoying Short Round in the second movie and the film’s acknowledgement of its Bondian lineage, The Last Crusade’s Indy Sr., Sean Connery.

I read an interview with Spielberg where he mentioned that he probably wouldn’t have used the Nazi plotlines if he’d made the original trilogy later in his career. (Thank God he didn’t digitally replace them with gigantic talking walkie-talkies on the DVDs.) This partially explains why the newest installment of the film, the forthcoming Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, is set in the postwar era. The Nazis support the premise that Raiders is a throwback to a time when they were the villains to be mocked and hated in films and cartoons; Belloq’s bespectacled lead henchman, Toht (Ronald Lacey), is truly menacing in every scene in which he appears. At the same time, though, the film’s bad guys are permitted a little complexity. Belloq is allowed some form of identifiable and relatable human failing—it seems he really is taken with Marion and that clouds his judgment. He has a scene of dialogue where he gives Indy the standard-issue “we’re two sides of the same coin” speech, but by film’s end, I realized that he was right. If the Nazis hadn’t opened the Ark of the Covenant when they got it, wouldn’t Jones (or his benefactor) have done so himself, inheriting the splitting headache that Belloq eventually earns?

Enough details and ramblings. Why Raiders remains my favorite time at the movies is simply this: It is damn exciting, technically crafted by Lucas, Kasdan, Spielberg, editor Michael Kahn (who won an Oscar for this) and composer John Williams into a well-oiled machine with well-timed shocks, how-did-he-do-that escapes and gory mayhem. Lucas may have re-edited so that Han Solo doesn’t shoot first, but Spielberg still allows Jones to commit the overly ruthless execution of the Nazi driving the Mercedes Benz whose ornament Indy thrillingly hangs onto in (for me) the iconic shot of the film.

As the ornament bends and Ford’s facial expression becomes more panicked, you can feel the movie pulling you to the edge of your seat. Kahn’s editing, Williams’ music, the stunt work and Spielberg’s direction conspire to grab you by the windpipe. This is great moviemaking, and Ford holds the entire contraption together. After playing Han Solo, his casting served as a form of shorthand, telling audiences to expect an adventurous type with a sense of humor who doesn’t play by the rules; yet this same expectation allows Ford to play with the more subtle details of his character. When a student in Indy’s archeology class sends him a message with her eyelids, Ford seems genuinely taken aback—his “OH NO SHE DIDN’T!!” expression is great—and Ford’s looks of frustration whenever Indy has been bested have a boyish “Aw, shucks” charm that shines through the cracks of the character’s seemingly impregnable façade.

The much maligned (and deservingly so) Temple of Doom gets a lot of flak for being violent, but Raiders is equally violent. The tone is different, however, and that carries a double edged sword. Doom is far darker, and the violence takes on a more appropriate, accurate sense of its disturbing nature, but in doing so it pulls the series into a place it didn’t seem designed to go. Why thrill us with mayhem only to slap our hands for enjoying it later?

Slant is reaching more readers than ever before, but advertising revenue across the Internet is falling fast, hitting independently owned and operated publications like ours the hardest. We’ve watched many of our fellow media sites fall by the way side in recent years, but we’re determined to stick around.

We’ve never asked our readers for financial support before, and we’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees. If you like what we do, however, please consider becoming a Slant patron.

Thanks for the fantastic piece on Raiders...very well written appreciation of an under appreciated film. (one nitpick...Belloch was French - kind of a turncoat for the sake of archeology).Posted by James Sposto on 2009-05-29 05:18:33

Thanks for these essays, and particularly for Matt's take on TEMPLE OF DOOM--for me the only movie in the trilogy that 20 years later holds any interest, precisely because it goes too far, it explodes the formula. In retrospect RAIDERS is a too fussy/sterile recreation of the old serials. It exists squarely within the mainstream. DOOM exists on its own manic fever-dream wavelength. Fantasies that go too far *do* turn dark, don't they? And pegging scenes like the banquet as "racist" utterly misses the point. This gross-out feast has nothing to do with what "real" Indians eat and everything to do with little boys daring each other to eat wriggling worms and bugs. The minute real-world sensitivities come into play, the fantasy bubble bursts. I'm happy to say to that DOOM never does.Posted by Steve on 2008-05-23 18:10:00

"If the Nazis hadn't opened the Ark of the Covenant when they got it, wouldn't Jones (or his benefactor) have done so himself, inheriting the splitting headache that Belloq eventually earns?"

I believe it's Ebert's interpretation of the movie that I so enjoy â€” the Nazis weren't killed because they opened the chest but because they were Nazis. (The burning of the swastika, for example, would indicate that the forces within the holy artifact aren't terribly pro-Nazi.) What's utterly great about the ending is that all of this would have invariably happened regardless of whether Indy intervened: Indy slowed 'em down, bless 'im, but when it came down to it, it took a higher power to put the Nazis in their place.Posted by Kyle Puetz on 2008-05-23 04:22:00

Matt wrote:

The Busby Berkeley set is to Club Obi-Wan as the Thuggee lair is to Pankot Palace.

I don't know if Spielberg meant it that way, but I LOVE this interpretation and it's certainly a view that had never even remotely occurred to me. In an alreeady insightful piece, for some reason this observation was a standout. Many a "Doom" fan will rabidly defend his love of the film. Me? I've gotten to the point where I just grumble stuff like "It is what it is."

Jeffrey -

You wrote a lot of stuff that I agree with throughout this talkback as well and many of your thoughts echo my own "Doom" fandom over the years.

Odie, you had either the toughest or the easiest job of the three. If it was the former, it's because there's little to say about "Raiders" that hasn't already been said (though admittedly, nobody can say it quite like you). If it was the latter, it's because "Raiders" requires zero defending. It's just too damn perfect. Or at least now it is - I actually sorta miss the glass between Ford and the snake that's been digitally removed.

Keith -

You know I love you and you gave it your best, but I still hate that film and doubt I'll ever feel otherwise. In fact, I just watched it a couple weekends ago and I may have hated it more than ever before.

Actually, I will say this for Keith's take - it made me think I was a tad too hard on certain aspects of "Last Crusade."Posted by Ross Ruediger on 2008-05-22 04:03:00

Steve: Oh, and I thought Odie was going to say Robert Downy, Jr. went from "Iron Man" to "Soul Man", the C.Thomas Howell, uh, "classic".

Now that's good! I like that! As for Soul Man, I remember laughing when the woman says to C. Thomas Howell after he finishes screwing her "I thought it would be bigger..." That movie is a guilty pleasure of mine.Posted by odienator on 2008-05-21 21:29:00

Just adding to the kudos for the great work. I recently rewatched all three films for the first time in forever and was struck by just how damn goofy they all are. Not to take away from the pathos or the horrors of certain sequences (especially in "Temple of Doom"), but almost every fight involves some comedy, much of it over the top by today's standards. This isn't necessarily a complaint, more just a reaction to the changing times--compared to, say, the Lord of the Rings and X-Men movies, the fights in the Indy films are practically slapstick. Two of the films were made before Spielberg began his Quest to Be Taken Seriously (by those who didn't already), and it seemed like the pratfalls and funny faces were there to reassure the audience that while Nazis, etc. were involved we're all just having fun here, right?

The films also brought back a question Matt asked in his much talked about essay on the reissue of the original Star Wars movies: will Harrison Ford ever be fun again? Here's hoping the new one has at least that going for it. The long forgotten gleam of mischief in his performances made a brief comeback in that "I'm Fucking Ben Afflec" video.

Oh, and I thought Odie was going to say Robert Downy, Jr. went from "Iron Man" to "Soul Man", the C.Thomas Howell, uh, "classic".Posted by Steve Haskin on 2008-05-21 17:38:00

kcm: Just to follow up on an earlier comment and pick a fanboy nit, Belloq was not a Nazi, per se.

Sorry about that folks. When I wrote that piece, I was having my own Indy adventure, hunched over an exploding laptop in a hotel room in Irving, Texas. My laptop kept dying without warning, so writing the piece was an adventure in itself. My apologies for that mistake.

And I THOUGHT that guy in the red umbrella looked familiar. I used to work for Citigroup back when they had the umbrella logo, and now I know what they did with the big ass umbrella that used to be outside of the building on Greenwich Street!

Jeffrey: they paint every countries' landscape as a Southern Californian backlot and every native as a white guy with bronzer and ridiculous clothing.

That sounds just like that new Ben Stiller movie, Tropic Thunder, the one featuring Robert Downey Jr. He went from being Iron Man to Ellison's Invisible Man!Posted by odienator on 2008-05-21 16:06:00

Jeffrey:

was Indy cynical about the Ark's power? I never got that impression - unless you're talking about how he so quickly picks up on the horror part of it's power (ie "Don't look at it, Marion!")

Sorry, I should have said "skeptical" instead, as when he scoffs about Marcus's warnings regarding the Ark early on. If he'd had the previous adventure in India, then he seems he wouldn't be as dismissive about "supernatural hocus-pocus." Then again, it wouldn't have tracked the other way either. Not a big deal, I just always wondered why they thought it necessary to make it a prequel, unless it was to explain Marion's absence.Posted by Craig on 2008-05-21 10:50:00

The apparent racism of the banquet scene in the second film extends to Last Crusade, too, when the President of the Turkish Republic of Hatay is depicted as an Abdul the Damned clone of a Terrible Turk, disregarding the secular nature of the city-state, which eventually joined Turkey anyway.

And I've always thought Sallah was also a product of 19th Century romantic orientalism than anything else.

But it's fitting within the context of the films. Realism is sidestepped for "perceived realism." Within the context of the Indy films, the perception, racist or otherwise, becomes reality. I like that about the films.Posted by Ali Arikan on 2008-05-21 06:13:00

The Hanged Man: I've always been interested in the use of Christian symbols and themes in Temple of Doom. The shot of Indy on the hillside is a mirror image of a mass produced painting of Christ on Gethsemance; Indy "dies" and comes back to life (with a wound in his side, natch); and acts as a savior of children. Of course, he's no Aslan, but I think you can read Doom as a secular Christian "saint" saving heathens from evil pagans.

This is an instance where I think Spielberg, Lucas and the screenwriters actually hit the right note. I've watched the film quite a few times and while I agree that there's a lot of Christian symbolism, I don't think there's any attempt to suggest that it's superior to Hinduism, or that the Americans are innately superior to Indians (the villagers, I mean). The Shaman's insistence that his prayer/invocation brought Indy and his pals to the village is proven correct (through a lot of the film's situations and imagery).

I don't think that indicates that Hinduism runs Christianity, though--I think it's Spielberg going for the "we're all the same inside" humanist thing that he does in Amistad, where the imprisoned African slaves study the Bible with a great deal of skepticism and awareness of its folktale/myth nature, then draw parallels between it and their own stories, and use it to understand their European enemies and friends. Or for that matter, Eliott and E.T. or the mothership and the ground crew learning to communicate with each other. Telling Indy of the Thuggee threat, he says the specific threat is that the great evil at Pankot Palace, which has already darkened the land, will continue to spread until all religions are subsumed. That's not placing one religion in a position superior to another; it's basically equating them as being different routes to the same place.

Politically, though, the movie's knee-jerk imperialist. The British army saves the day at the end, leading Indian troops to put down the Thuggees just as we learn they had a century earlier. There's definitely a hint of, "These people can't be trusted to run their own country," whether the filmmakers consciously intended it or were just projecting their own inherited cultural bias.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-05-21 06:10:00

Intriguing pieces. Just to follow up on an earlier comment and pick a fanboy nit, Belloq was not a Nazi, per se. That's one of the interesting things about his character: He seems to detest the Nazis as much as Indy. If anything, he was a Vichy style collaborator...well, that is before he start cavorting around with the huge umbrella, selling insurance.Posted by KcM on 2008-05-21 04:46:00

Odie, Matt, Keith:

Great pieces, everyone. Having seen every film countless times and written about them myself, I found myself agreeing with just about everything each of you said and evern learning a new thing or two about interpreting the films themselves.

Good job, all. :)Posted by Damian on 2008-05-21 03:33:00

Craig: was Indy cynical about the Ark's power? I never got that impression - unless you're talking about how he so quickly picks up on the horror part of it's power (ie "Don't look at it, Marion!")

I must have a tin ear to the racism stuff regarding Temple of Doom. I understand the charges, but the film is so over the top that it's hard to take it seriously. Even as a 12 year old I realized that Snake Surprise and Chilled Monkey Brains were not necessarily authentic Indian cuisine - but rather Spielberg wanting to gross out his audience. At most, a goodnatured eyeroll is all that is needed to acknowledge it. Matt's examples - particularly Gunga Din are far worse when it comes to cavalier racism (which is why I would rank that film among my guilty pleasures). It would be another story if Temple of Doom was a serious picture and still screwed up everything about Indian culture, or if it maliciously painted Indians in an unfavorable. The only malicious depictions were of the Thugees - and I'm thinking they're fair game. I don't believe ignorance of a culture, or a simplification of it, immediately makes something racist. Otherwise, I could never watch the original serials that inspired Indy - since they paint every countries' landscape as a Southern Californian backlot and every native as a white guy with bronzer and ridiculous clothing.

When it comes to silly representations of other peoples, I always think of the American in Kurosawa's Sanshiro Sugata 2 who is a caricature of the stupid American. I imagine the guy was European. Regardless, it's always good for a laugh.

And I would like to offer up the following defense of Kate Capshaw: while her performance was bad and grating - those very features fit in with her ditzy character. Taking the film as a tribute to the serials - that's about the most authentic nod the trilogy gives.

Lastly - Matt, I'd like to join the chorus of kudos on your piece. As someone who has doggedly defended the movie, I thought your take was up there with the best and gave me fodder for future arguments.Posted by Jeffrey Hill on 2008-05-21 02:28:00

odienator -Thanks. Now I have the theme from Skidoo running through my head.

Great trilogy of essays about films I don't seem to like as much as everyone else. It reminds me of when Pauline Kael wrote for The New Yorker and I was more interested in reading her reviews than I was in seeing the films themselves.

That said, I've always been interested in the use of Christian symbols and themes in Temple of Doom. The shot of Indy on the hillside is a mirror image of a mass produced painting of Christ on Gethsemance; Indy "dies" and comes back to life (with a wound in his side, natch); and acts as a savior of children. Of course, he's no Aslan, but I think you can read Doom as a secular Christian "saint" saving heathens from evil pagans.Posted by the hanged man on 2008-05-21 00:12:00

Matt: "agreed that Spielberg seems to have a whipsaw reaction to his own astounding facility for staging violence and kinetic action. It was you who observed that we should all remind ourselves that even though Spielberg is thought of as a pretty cuddly mainstream director, the man loves to violently eliminate people and is very, very good at it. I bet he's spent a fair amount of time pondering his own lethal artistry and surely feeling a tad guilty about it."

I think this long-standing conflict within Spielberg reached an apotheosis of sorts with MUNICH, where pretty much every act of violence results in the perpetrators (and sometimes, the victims) standing stock-still gawping at the outcome, utterly stunned by what's transpired. It's as if he's finally been able to get this thing up out of himself and onto the screen. I'm weirdly reminded of Killer Bob's offering of Garmonbozia to the Black Lodge in TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME...

I'm anxious to see how Spielberg will portray violence in the movies he makes from here on out. Most crucially, I wonder whether he'll continue to take his guilt out on his movies, sacrificing their integrity for self-flagellating acts of ill-considered third act contrition.

-JeffPosted by Jeffrey Allen Rydell on 2008-05-20 22:42:00

I actually think what people consider racist about "Temple of Doom" comes from cultural cluelessness and immaturity than anything meant to be hurtful.

This sort of cropped up in most of Spielberg's movies from "1941" to "Last Crusade". Asians, in particular, didn't fare too well in "1941", "Temple of Doom" or "Empire of the Sun".

Sometimes, the artistry did overcome these rough patches, which I agree helps with "Temple of Doom". If anything, for me, "1941" tops all Spielberg movies for racial insensitivity. Perhaps, producing "Letters from Iwo Jima" was Spielberg's apology for that one.

The more I think about it, "Temple of Doom" probably is the companion piece to the chaotic mess of "1941", except more disciplined and considerably meaner.Posted by Steven Santos on 2008-05-20 22:13:00

Chris Koh: The two strangely don't seem that contrite about the casual racism/imperialism. They still seem amused by that banquet scene - when that's perhaps some of the most racist material in the movie.

That is strange. Considering how politically correct and eager to be respected Spielberg is, you'd think he'd have completely disowned Temple of Doom by now, and maybe even apologized to the entire population of India for releasing it.

My own attitude: Yeah, it's offensive and simplistic and frankly childish. But so is the view of Mexicans in The Wild Bunch, the rural redneck whites of Deliverance and the presentation of Indians in Gunga Din. Being a movie fan means learning to compartmentalize one's reactions. If the artistry is there, one can cut a film a fair amount of slack.

And to build on Odie's point above, it's true that Doom comes the closest of all the Indy movies to replicating every individual aspect of an old-time movie serial, including the retrograde sexist posturing by the hero, the wide-eyed child sidekick, the completely useless hot chick love interest and the army of swarthy Others cast as villains and foils. I found this rather fascinating the last time I re-watched the film; if Spielberg had anything substantive to say about these images--if he and Lucas were doing more than reproducing them with a wink--there probably would not have been such an outcry.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-05-20 21:17:00

Odie: Despite its occasionally thrilling set pieces, the film feels like punishment. It's as if Spielberg felt guilty for his casual use of violence in Raiders, and wants to repent by scaring the shit out of the kids who jonesed on Raiders.

Yeah, definitely. Clearly I like the result more than you do, but agreed that Spielberg seems to have a whipsaw reaction to his own astounding facility for staging violence and kinetic action. It was you who observed that we should all remind ourselves that even though Spielberg is thought of as a pretty cuddly mainstream director, the man loves to violently eliminate people and is very, very good at it. I bet he's spent a fair amount of time pondering his own lethal artistry and surely feeling a tad guilty about it.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-05-20 21:10:00

This is really outstanding work. Required reading for any fan of the series!Posted by Daniel G. on 2008-05-20 17:57:00

I love that Willie stands in front of Temple of Doom's title. I don't think any other movie has obscured its title before or since.Posted by odienator on 2008-05-20 14:48:00

First of all, I'm honored to be in such good company on this piece. Maybe Spielberg and Lucas should have hired us to write the fourth movie. If anything, it would have had the Paramount logo dissolve into Keith and Cate Blanchett singing the theme from Skidoo in Russian.

Jeffrey Hill: (who got me hooked on that stupid Terry and the Pirates serial) Redemption or not, I was glad that little bastard got what was coming to him.

After my infamous Japanese Monkey Adventure, I'm with you. DOWN WITH MONKEYS!!! Except at the Blackjack table, of course.

Great take on Temple of Doom, Matt, especially the observation that Kate Crapshaw [sic] is singing to us, not Club Obi Wan's patrons. The movie belongs on a triple bill of angrily divorcing director movies with The Brood and Possession. Despite its occasionally thrilling set pieces, the film feels like punishment. It's as if Spielberg felt guilty for his casual use of violence in Raiders, and wants to repent by scaring the shit out of the kids who jonesed on Raiders.

I was 14 when I saw Temple of Doom, and the teenage gorehound in me was appeased. The kid who reacted to Raiders with such joy found nothing onto which to latch, however. The film is a joyless and empty affair. Everything around Indy was either disgusting or irritating. Short Round is cringe-inducing, and the star of Dreamscape is doing the worst Judy Holliday imitation in history.

With that said, Temple of Doom is the closest thing to the serials Lucas and Spielberg loved as a kid. The women were eye candy, the Others were bizarre, dehumanized and caricatured, and the teenage sidekick was a ball of "gee-willikers" wild-eyed naivete. At least the Raiders films play a little fairer with the escapes than the serials do.

I never saw Last Crusade as an apology from Spielberg, just a means of recasting Indy in Spielberg's usual daddy-issues formula. Like Keith, I loved the River Phoenix flashback, even if it were way too neat and fanboyish, and I think Ford has more chemistry with Connery than he had with any other actor in the series. This is the first Indy movie to get the rating T of D helped create, yet it seems less violent than the two movies that preceded it. Go figure.

Great work, guys!Posted by odienator on 2008-05-20 14:45:00

What wonderful pieces - eloquent; full of joy, wit, and passion. Thanks for taking part in the blog-a-thon, you krazy katz.Posted by Ali Arikan on 2008-05-20 10:04:00

"Granted, these are Spielberg and Lucas' films, and they can butcher them at will, but in making the original versions hard to obtain on home video, it felt as if they were rewriting history."

Hey, what's this?

http://tinyurl.com/6dtun3

That's right - both versions, easily available - comparable quality and everything.

I really wish this would hurry up and become the non-issue it's always deserved to be.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-05-20 02:31:00

Re: Indy being influenced by Bogart in Sierra Madre: Spielberg credited Lawrence Kasdan for bringing that aspect of Indy's personality to the foreground in the Raiders script. We can thank Kasdan for supplying alot of the original wit that characterized the series and character. From what I've read (and I wish I hadn't read anything about the new film) - the flaws of the latest Indy is that the character interactions lack the charm and wit of the original. This doesn't surprise me since I've never been taken with David Koepp's dialogue or characterizations. Frankly, I was a bit surprised when he was the one who ended up with the winning script in the 19 year old Indy script lotto.Posted by ckoh71 on 2008-05-20 02:28:00

What a fabulous discussion of these three films, particularly of Temple of Doom which I hadn't really ever taken seriously in the Spielberg-Lucas Canon. I think you hit it on the head, when you said the movie expresses the id of Lucas (especially) and Spielberg. Lucas revealed in the making of featurette in the DVD set I bought a few years back, but strangely never watched until tonight - that he always wanted the film to be darker & alot of that was driven by his divorce at the time. He admitted that he was in a foul mood - which explains alot of the hellish atmosphere. The two strangely don't seem that contrite about the casual racism/imperialism. They still seem amused by that banquet scene - when that's perhaps some of the most racist material in the movie.Posted by ckoh71 on 2008-05-20 02:24:00

MZS: Jeffrey: "I thought Nazis were still supposed to be mocked and hated. They are (and I hope they always will be) great Hollywood villains. Maybe I don't get Spielberg's position on this."

As I understand it, Spielberg's not losing any sleep over the ethics of vilifying Nazis--he just feels that working on Schindler's List made him appreciate the true horror of what the Nazis did, and that made him look back on his deploying them as mustache-twirling bad guys and feel somewhat ashamed of his own immaturity.

And therein lies the problem with Spielberg. I think you're one-hundred percent right in saying "...he just feels that working on Schindler's List made him appreciate..." A false concept of nobility, truth, or some such feeling that drives his historical work. As for being confused, well, yes, thats what happens when faced with simplistic, muddled ideas about history and presentations representations of ideas on the like on celluloid.Posted by Recktall Brown on 2008-05-20 01:34:00

Also: I think Spielberg and Lucas and Ford have all said that Indy's demeanor (including the snarling impatience and the two-day stubble) were hugely influenced by Humphrey Bogart's Fred C. Dobbs in Treasure of the Sierra Madre.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-05-20 00:35:00

Jeffrey: I thought Nazis were still supposed to be mocked and hated. They are (and I hope they always will be) great Hollywood villains. Maybe I don't get Spielberg's position on this.

As I understand it, Spielberg's not losing any sleep over the ethics of vilifying Nazis--he just feels that working on Schindler's List made him appreciate the true horror of what the Nazis did, and that made him look back on his deploying them as mustache-twirling bad guys and feel somewhat ashamed of his own immaturity.

However, even if that's his point, I don't understand that one, either. Where melodrama is concerned, a bad guy is a bad guy is a bad guy, and I hardly think that 1950s-era Soviets (the bad guys in the new Indy film) constitute a less touchy substitute.

Steven: There was more of a ruthlessness to Jones, as he was out for personal glory but did eventually do the right thing. I always thought Indiana Jones was influenced a few of Humphrey Bogart's most famous roles.

But, it was in Temple of Doom that Jones did indeed put away childish things as Matt mentions. However, that, to me, stripped away what made him interesting. Granted, he was a reluctant hero (thanks to Ford's world-weariness), but, in my opinion, a less conflicted one and ultimately too noble in his motivations.

It's absolutely true that Indy became more a knight-in-shining-armor type (a metaphor literalized in the motorcycle joust of The Last Crusade) between the midpoint of the second film and the climax of the third. I liked his evolution in Doom, and it's a big part of the reason that's the installment I want to keep revisiting--it mixes kinetic insanity and poignant melodrama in a way that I find quite bracing, and in comparison the third film feels too gentle to me (I didn't think the action was very exciting, either, and if the action's not exciting in a Spielberg movie, you have to wonder if something has gone seriously wrong).

I wouldn't defend any of the three films as being among Spielberg's great accomplishments. The dramas are of course more complex, and some of his so-called "popcorn" pictures strike me as a lot more artistically rich (Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters, Minority Report to name just four). But damn, they're all fun, and all re-watchable for different reasons.

There is definitely a sense that the character and the world become a bit more closed-off with each installment, from the "How Indy became Indy" storyline of the prequel through the third movie, which features an opening sequence that explains almost every distinctive Indy trait in a single sequence (snake fear, bullwhip, chin scar, hat, etc). It's too one-stop shopping for me, exciting and cheeky as it is.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-05-20 00:33:00

These are all three great pieces. And despite my many issues with Temple of Doom and Last Crusade (as well as wondering about the motivations behind the new one), these pieces did make me appreciate some aspects of them more while still realistic about their shortcomings.

I had brought this up in another thread, but it feels more appropriate here. I always wondered if in some way the character of Indiana Jones strayed too far from what he was in Raiders. In Odie's piece, there is the mention of the scene where Belloq tells him how they are both sides of the same coin.

There was more of a ruthlessness to Jones, as he was out for personal glory but did eventually do the right thing. I always thought Indiana Jones was influenced a few of Humphrey Bogart's most famous roles.

But, it was in Temple of Doom that Jones did indeed put away childish things as Matt mentions. However, that, to me, stripped away what made him interesting. Granted, he was a reluctant hero (thanks to Ford's world-weariness), but, in my opinion, a less conflicted one and ultimately too noble in his motivations.

Whenever I wonder why Raiders stuck with me more than the sequels, I always come back to this aspect which is the fault of the story, not Ford. I liked the character more when he wasn't the kind of person who needed to be liked.Posted by Steven Santos on 2008-05-19 23:29:00

This is a wonderful treat, one that may prove more fun than the latest installment itself. Thanks, guys.

I agree with just about everything Odie said about Raiders. Ford doesn't get nearly enough credit for his acting in this film: Watch how excited he gets while conveying the story of the Ark during the early exposition scene with the government officials; or his Bogart-esque drunkenness during his standoff with Belloq after he thinks Marion's dead; or the euphoric intensity on his face in the map room. Admittedly, I find Karen Allen a bit more grating than the majority of viewers, but otherwise it's the gold standard of action-adventure movies.

I absolutely loved Temple of Doom as a teenager, but I can see it's flaws now. Capshaw is embarrassing, the dinner sequence is deeply stupid, and I never did understand why they chose to make it a prequel. (It doesn't track that Indy would be cynical about the Ark's powers after experiencing the power of the stone here.) But the movie's kinetic energy and slapstick humor still win me over. The dazzling opening musical number in this film that Matt mentions, along with the jitterbug sequence in 1941, have always made me wish Spielberg would helm a musical. I think he'd be a natural.

Keith's fine analysis notwithstanding, The Last Crusade remains my least favorite of the trilogy. For me it's a frustrating movie, because I can see how the film should work; all the themes are there in Jeffrey Boam's script, albeit with ideas that veer wildly from the lame to the ingenious. It's easily the most erudite of the three films: even when it's in a plug-in-the-Charlemagne-quote kind of way one sees on college term papers, Sean Connery sells it. I also think Alison Doody (former Bond girl, and another connection with that series) does underrated work with a complex part. For me, the problem with Last Crusade lies with the director, who seems distracted and oddly dispirited. This is evident right from the prologue, which despite the welcome presence of River Phoenix (who played Ford's tormented son in The Mosquito Coast), the tone seems off somehow, John Williams' score too cutesy-poo. That the movie works at all is by virtue of Ford and Connery's interplay; but it's only during a handful of sight gags (namely a doozy with Denholm Elliott) that Spielberg's customary energy comes to life.Posted by Craig on 2008-05-19 22:26:00

To correct something, Belloq isn't a Nazi but rather a mercenary archaelogist who's in it for the money. His character is using the Nazis to gain glory for himself, he doesn't have much use for their agenda, or so it seems.Posted by Justin on 2008-05-19 20:16:00

Keith: Your retelling of the opening sequence of Last Crusade is the most eloquent I've read. I always thought #3 was the weakest of all the films, and I often cite the beginning as the reason - but your take was well done.

Odie: Your description of Raiders as the best time you had at the movies describes perfectly how I feel about Temple of Doom. I think Raiders is the better movie, but you know...

Redemption or not, I was glad that little bastard got what was coming to him.

The Nazis support the premise that Raiders is a throwback to a time when they were the villains to be mocked and hated in films and cartoons

Did time pass me by? I thought Nazi's were still supposed to be mocked and hated. They are (and I hope they always will be) great Hollywood villains. Maybe I don't get Spielberg's position on this.Posted by Jeffrey Hill on 2008-05-19 19:30:00

Well, now I don't have to contribute to the blog-a-thon! ;)

Great read, guys. I'll hopefully have more to say when I'm not too busy.Posted by Todd on 2008-05-19 19:26:00

Re: Childish Things

Simply the best essay I've ever read about "Temple." A very enjoyable and informative piece.

Loved your analysis of its stages of descent, and I think another stage you could add is the raft plunge from the plane--preceded by Indy dozing off to sleep.Posted by Adam Ross on 2008-05-19 16:32:00

Many thanks T. I've made the correction.Posted by Keith Uhlich on 2008-05-19 15:22:00

I hate to be nit-picky about such an amazing piece about some of my favorite movies, but Kate Capshaw sings "Anything Goes" in Mandarin, not Cantonese.

I figured in the interest of accuracy and throughness, you'd want that correction. Outside of Hong Kong and Guangdong (Canton Province) - everyone here speaks Mandarin. Club Obi-Wan is in Shanghai.Posted by T. on 2008-05-19 15:19:00